http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SMT. PRATAP KAUR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ANR. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/01/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (3) 263        JT 1995 (2)   569  1995 SCALE  (2)118

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1.   Leave granted. 2.The  appeals by special leave arise from the judgment  and Order dated 14.5.95 and 20.11.92 of the High Court of Punjab &  Haryana made in Review Application No.20 CII of 1993  and C.M. 2262 of 1993 and C.R. No.3019/92 respectively. 3.   The notification under s.4(1) of the Land    Acquisition Act, 1894, for short the Act, was  published  initially   on March 3 1, 1981     acquiring  a  large extent  of  land  in Gobindpura  and  other  places  for  extension  of  military cantonment   at   Bhatinda.    In   the   determination   of compensation, the Division Bench of the High Court in L.P.A. No. 13 49/89 and batch ultimately held that: "Consequently  we  venture to make the modification  in  the order  of  the  Single Judge, to the effect  that  the  land failing  within  a  depth of 500 meters an  either  side  of Bhatinda-Bibiwala Road shall also be assessed at the rate of Rs.90,000/- per acre as its market value......... That  order appears to have become final.  Subsequently  the respondents filed an application before the Additional Dist. Judge in Civil Misc.  No.75 of 10.8.1991 for demarcation and award  of compensation  to the 500 meters as ordered by  the High  Court.   By order dated 16.12.1991  the  Addl.   Dist. Judge held that-, "From the evidence discussed above, it is crystal clear that the  Land measuring  70 kanals 13 Marlas belonging  to  Naib Singh  etc., land measuring 141 kanals 1 marla belonging  to Gurdial  Singh  etc.  land  measuring  30  kanals  3  marlas belonging  to Pratap Kaur etc. land measuring 40  kanals  10 marlas  belonging  to Bhagwan Kaur etc.  land  measuring  48 kanals belonging to Gurdial Kaur etc., and land measuring  3 kanals  i.e. 1/12 share of 35 kanals 9 marlas  belonging  to Sadhy Singh are with 500 meters from Bathinda Bibiwala road. 571               I  may  add  here that  the  evidence  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

             applicants    remained    unchanged    despite               opportunities given to the UOI.  On the  other               hand,   the   officials   of   the   concerned               department have appeared in the witness box as               AW 1, AW 2 and AW 5 to support the case of the               claimants.     Even   otherwise    from    the               interpretation  ofjudgment  Ex.A3  it  clearly               goes to show that the land which falls  within               the  depth of 500 meters from either  side  of               Bathinda Bibiwala Road, should be assessed  at               rate of Rs.90,000/- per acre.  The land of the               applicants  adjoins  the  land  which  as  per               evidence  on record, was assessed at the  rate               of   Rs.90,000/-   per  acre.    I   therefore               accepting  the  applications direct  the  Naib                             Tehsildar (MLA) Bhatinda to prepare the amende d               memo  of  costs in respect of the  above  said               land   of  the  applicants  at  the  rate of               Rs.90,000/- per acre.  The parties are left to               bear their own costs". Calling  in  question the above order the  appellants  filed revision  in the High Court.  The High Court  dismissed  the revision  in limine.  Thereafter the review  petitions  also stood dismissed.  Thus these appeals by special leave. 4. The question that arises in these appeals is whether  the District Judge has power and    jurisdiction    to award compensation  @  Rs.90,000/-  per acre to  the  area  coming within  the  belt of 500 meters as ordered by  the  Division Bench of the High Court. 5.  Section 26 of the Act gives power to the Civil Court  to give award thus:               1)  Every  award under this Part shall  be  in               writing signed by the Judge, and shall   specify               the amount awarded under clause     first   of               sub-s.(1) of s.23, and.........." Section  13-A  of the Act as amended under Act  68  of  1984 provides power for correcting clerical error% thus:               "13-A.  Correction of clerical errors, etc....               (1)   The  Collector may, at any time but  not               later  than  six months from die date  of  the               award, or where he has been required under  s.               18  to make a reference to the  Court,  before               the  making  of  such  reference,  by   order,               correct any clerical or arithmetical  mistakes               in the award or errors arising therein  either               on  his own motion  or on the  application  of               any person interested or a local authority.               Provided that no correction which is likely to               affect prejudicially any person shall be  made               unless such person has been given a reasonable               opportunity of making a representation in  the               matter."               (Sub-ss.(2)  and (3) are not material for  the               purpose of this case. hence omitted). 6.  Perforce,  it has no application to  the,  Civil  Court. Even  if the principle is extended to the Civil  Court,  the Court  committed manifest error of jurisdiction in  allowing the application, as it did not correct any clerical error. 7.A  conjoint reading of ss.26 and 13-A of the  Act  clearly indicates  that while making the award and  determining  the compensation  under clause firstly of subs.(1) of  s.23  the Collector  had  jurisdiction to determine  the  compensation including  belting  for the purpose  of  determining  market value   and  correct  clerical  and  arithmetical   mistakes

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

committed in making the award.  The High Court had exercised appellate  power under s.54 of the Act.  Appellate power  is co-extensive  with that of the Civil Court.  Therefore,  the High Court, while exercising the appellate power, could 572 also  decide belting.  The Division Bench in the  LPA  while determining  the compensation under clause firstly  of  sub- s.(1)  of s.23, had identified belting upto a depth  of  500 meters and directed payment of compensation for that land at 90,000/-  per  acre.   When the  High  Court  exercised  the appellate power, without any order of remand or calling  for a  finding,  the  District  Judge was  devoid  of  power  or jurisdiction  to correct any error either under s.  13-A  of the Act or under s. 152 CPC, that too beyond the  limitation prescribed  under  s. 13A itself The identification  of  the land  is not a clerical or arithmetical mistake  within  the meaning  of  s. 13-A or s. 152 CPC.  It  is  an  independent exercise  of the power for the purpose of  determination  of the  compensation under clause firstly of sub-s.(1) of  s.23 of the Act.  With making the award under s.26 of the Act the Civil  Court ceased to have power to alter the award  except to  correct clerical or arithmetical errors.  The action  of the Additional District Judge was an independent one without reference or an order of remand or the High Court calling  a finding from it.  The Civil Court, therefore, was devoid  of jurisdiction and power to pass the impugned award or  order, as stated by the Additional District Judge; and that too af- ter it had made the award. 8.   Since  the Addl.  Dist.  Judge was not called  upon  to determine the compensation after identification of the  land within  the  belting  of 500 meters  as  determined  by  the Division  Bench, the order of the District Judge is  clearly without jurisdiction and power and is a nullity.  Therefore, the  High Court was not right in dismissing the  application without  adverting to these material questions touching  the jurisdiction  and power of the Addl.  Dist.  Judge.   Though Sri  Arun  Jetley,  the learned  Senior  counsel  repeatedly requested  this Court not to interfere under Art.136, it  is necessary  to  correct legal error to set the  procedure  in order. 9.   The,  appeals are accordingly allowed.  It is  open  to the  respondents, if so advised, to approach the High  Court for  appropriate  relief  and it is for the  High  Court  to consider and dispose of it according to law.  No costs. In C.A. Nos. 3182-87 of 1995 @ SLP (C) Nos. 18320-25194: 10.  Leave granted.  Substitution allowed. 11.  In  view of the above judgment, these appeals also  are allowed.  No costs. 573